My Nephew works for Delta and he claims they're quite enamored with it. I would think they would be if for No other reason than Airbus is kissing their Butts about now because they do NOT want to see them with buyers remorse for the A321's the A330's or the A350's especially seeing as how they still have Boeing as a supplier as well.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

That sounds like to me they were already cutting it a bit close, unless you were sitting on the taxiway for a very long time. You don't often hear of planes that have to go back to top off because they used up all their taxi fuel and were into trip fuel.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

That sounds like to me they were already cutting it a bit close, unless you were sitting on the taxiway for a very long time. You don't often hear of planes that have to go back to top off because they used up all their taxi fuel and were into trip fuel.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

But that would happen in the 350 as well....we don't "fill her up" at the gas station like most cars, you have very detailed and accurate flight plan, maybe 20 mins for taxi average( depending on statistical average)......if one day you wait an hour they were probably below their min take off fuel. In current company I could use contingency fuel on ground- previous airline had a min fuel brake release fuel for takeoff, and if below that number not legal to take off

My Nephew works for Delta and he claims they're quite enamored with it. I would think they would be if for No other reason than Airbus is kissing their Butts about now because they do NOT want to see them with buyers remorse for the A321's the A330's or the A350's especially seeing as how they still have Boeing as a supplier as well.

My Nephew works for Delta and he claims they're quite enamored with it. I would think they would be if for No other reason than Airbus is kissing their Butts about now because they do NOT want to see them with buyers remorse for the A321's the A330's or the A350's especially seeing as how they still have Boeing as a supplier as well.

didn't they just defer new orders?

They did. Two coming in 2019, and two more A350s in 2020, but the ten in the original order after that are deferred to 2025-26 -- and there are conversion rights to 339s.

I don't see the point of a 'How are they performing?' question here. Did the OP expect to see in-house dispatch reliability or fuel burn data? Pretty much anything else is just an anecdote.

DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)

What exactly are you trying to say? That Delta understands that Airbus makes a good airplane, or that Delta understands that Airbus makes a better airplane than Boeing? The first part of the sentence is correct. The second is not, especially not for twin aisle airplanes. The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.

My observation from meetings and stuff is that Boeing is very well aware of the excellent capability of the A321, and has a healthy respect for the A350 and C-series also.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

This is really the main point.

As the big 3 (and other global majors) induct lots of these NG widebodies (and enhanced narrowbodies) the network fuel burn is being bent down. Daily fuel burn is one of the ultimate bogeymen of airlines. It can gradually ruin a business model ove rmany years. These ac will give Delta's existing strategy more financial viability in years to come. Vague answer, but the true answer. Operationally their 777 fleet was already fine.

Hmmm, I wonder of it's a jfk thing. In an interview with the famous and recently retired kennedy Steve, he did say that jfk has some of the worst taxiways. Something I didn't know was that he worked all aspects of ATC, not just ground, although he preferred working ground. A quick side note, his favorite plane to work with on arrivals was the 757 because of its versatility with being able to fly very slow and that it can turn tighter than most other aircraft... but I've had a a few occasions as I'm sure we all have where we spend more time taxiing than what was planned for. Flying back from Vegas, hD taken a standby as it bumped us to FC. We were several back in line on a 727 at ord. I had a great view of the arrivals and without an apparant reason I watched a go around. Good weather, looked to be coming in the same as all the rest. Shortly after the captain comes on and announces problems with the runway lights. Being in F the FA breaks out out the beverages. We waited about a good hr. Earlier this year flying home from FLL TO ALB ON JET BLUE A320, We had to wait in the terminal for quite some time as they shut down operations due to severe thunderstorms. Finally we board,push back and then another wave strikes. That was at least a 45 min wait. When I was doing one of my several ALB-PHL Trips on an erj 145, we are 3rd in line vxx when the captain comes on and apologized for a lengthy delay but it was on philly's side. Come to find out PHL had closed off operations while Trumps secret service rolled in for about an hr. Longer than the flight itself. So theres 3 examples of taxiing taking a good hr. Taxi fuel is accounted for.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

Hmmm, I wonder of it's a jfk thing. In an interview with the famous and recently retired kennedy Steve, he did say that jfk has some of the worst taxiways. Something I didn't know was that he worked all aspects of ATC, not just ground, although he preferred working ground. A quick side note, his favorite plane to work with on arrivals was the 757 because of its versatility with being able to fly very slow and that it can turn tighter than most other aircraft... but I've had a a few occasions as I'm sure we all have where we spend more time taxiing than what was planned for. Flying back from Vegas, hD taken a standby as it bumped us to FC. We were several back in line on a 727 at ord. I had a great view of the arrivals and without an apparant reason I watched a go around. Good weather, looked to be coming in the same as all the rest. Shortly after the captain comes on and announces problems with the runway lights. Being in F the FA breaks out out the beverages. We waited about a good hr. Earlier this year flying home from FLL TO ALB ON JET BLUE A320, We had to wait in the terminal for quite some time as they shut down operations due to severe thunderstorms. Finally we board,push back and then another wave strikes. That was at least a 45 min wait. When I was doing one of my several ALB-PHL Trips on an erj 145, we are 3rd in line vxx when the captain comes on and apologized for a lengthy delay but it was on philly's side. Come to find out PHL had closed off operations while Trumps secret service rolled in for about an hr. Longer than the flight itself. So theres 3 examples of taxiing taking a good hr. Taxi fuel is accounted for.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

Is the nonrev issue really indicative of a problem? If the carrier chooses to max out on cargo, that is their prerogative. Maybe 150 seats could be empty. Just a question. Maybe it indicates the A350 has a good cargo carrying ability.

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

Yes, while the A350 burns significantly less fuel than a 747, that has nothing to do with returning to the gate for more gas.

These are two completely separate issues and returning to the gate for more fuel in these situations would apply to ALL aircraft.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.

Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.

Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.

Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?

The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

I don't see Delta sacrificing 11,000 gallons of fuel in order to accommodate non-revs!

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time. As such DL is disappointed in its performance and trying to get Airbus to change the rating on the plane. The issue is the DL feels that Airbus should do it for free and Airbus wants DL to pay for it. So until that happens, its SOP.

I don't see Delta sacrificing 11,000 gallons of fuel in order to accommodate non-revs!

It’s not about non-rev’s...that’s just how I came to realize the problem. If Delta’s A359 is on a long haul route and is full of “revenue” passengers then it will likely have to leave some cargo behind and prioritize the revenue passengers. I also mentioned that the 77L doesn’t have this problem. At no time did I say that Delta should do anything different to get non-revs on...they are space available.

Last edited by Michiganatc on Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.

Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.

Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?

That depends on when the aircraft was built. Going up to 280t is likely a no go, but 275t or 278t is probably just a paper change. The question as earlier mentioned is who pays for it.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.

Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.

Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?

I have a feeling it would come with a 7 figure price tag per plane. Although airplane modifications are mostly software and landing gear, airlines have to pay more for all the certification work and performance calculations to upgrade weight. Weight increases are charged based on value to the airline, not cost to modify the airplane. Airbus will price the weight increase to be commensurate with all the extra revenue from carrying more payload long distances. It is similar to how Microsoft can charge $200 for a windows upgrade.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both. Ironically, because they are more fuel efficient, each ton of fuel traded for payload hurts the A359 more than the 77E.

Note also that Delta rates the A359 for 8000 sm (7000 nm). That's pax and bags. The 77E (with RR engines) is rated for 8700 sm, while the 77L is 10375 sm. The 77L is the best for carrying heavy loads long distances; it can fly with max payload for almost 8000 sm. Of course that uses 48000 gallons of fuel, versus about 37000 gallons max in an A359. So for flights that aren't all that far, the A359 carries a lot and saves fuel. But if DL wants to carry full loads from the eastern US to Asia all the time, they need more 77Ls.

Or they could just get 280t A350s... no need for 77Ls.

Does converting a 268t variant to a 280t require hardware changes or can it be done with a check to Airbus and a new piece of paper?

A 278t A359 (the 280t non-ULR variant is a ways out) will add about 700 nm. This is the variant made for Philippines to fly nonstop from MNL to JFK. Speculation is that DL is delaying their final 10 A359s to get a higher weight variant.The extra 10t will help a lot, but will not equal a 77L.Also note that Qantas made Airbus offer an A35J variant for Project Sunrise because the A359ULR did not come close. Qantas thinks the A35J will work, but it will be over 320t. DL is not trying to fly that far, but it does show that if you want to carry a big load a long ways, there is no substitute for high MTOW.

I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time.

DL would have know exactly what the weight variant they selected could do and its performance guarantees would have been written in the contract. If they didn't, then they were dumber than dumb.

jagraham wrote:

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both.

DL would not be the first airline to regret buying lower weight variants of a plane. You get what you pay for.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

At my airline the 350 has quite a bad rep with stay passengers....often has 50-100 seats open and can't accommodate staff, or if you get on the latest issue has been a downgrade from business to Y class due to weight and balance issues, needing more aft cg......while common on small turbo props I have never seen this in wide body ac.But back to original post, it is kind of interesting that Delta is enamored with the 350 and at same time deferring deliveries?

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

I flew JFK-TPE-MNL on EVA (77W) a few years ago, and it seemed that the taxi at JFK was longer than the flight.

The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time.

DL would have know exactly what the weight variant they selected could do and its performance guarantees would have been written in the contract. If they didn't, then they were dumber than dumb.

jagraham wrote:

DL has 268t A359s. They can fly far OR can carry heavy payloads, but can't do both.

DL would not be the first airline to regret buying lower weight variants of a plane. You get what you pay for.

There is nothing wrong with buying a lower weight variant. After all, every 2% of weight gain costs about 1% in fuel efficiency. But if you buy the lower weight variant, use it appropriately.As you said, DL should have gotten actual performance guarantees. And should have received trip planning software adjusted for exactly what they brought. Any range limitation should not have been a surprise.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

Hard to believe. Zeke reported on inaugural flight HKG-EWR:last yearThe EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Even if it is for 275t variat is still almost 1000sm furter then DTW-PVG!

There should be other operational rasons or your source is not thrust worthy

It’s a little obtuse of you to think that an A350 Load Optimization Planner at Delta in ATL is not a “trustworthy” source...it’s kind of their job. Plus, read the other posts above this that mention the DL internal rumblings about it’s MTOW concerns.

At my airline the 350 has quite a bad rep with stay passengers....often has 50-100 seats open and can't accommodate staff, or if you get on the latest issue has been a downgrade from business to Y class due to weight and balance issues, needing more aft cg......while common on small turbo props I have never seen this in wide body ac.But back to original post, it is kind of interesting that Delta is enamored with the 350 and at same time deferring deliveries?

THIS-is a great point. Plenty of weight and balance issues on RJ’s but I also have not heard of this on widebody a/c.

DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)

What exactly are you trying to say? That Delta understands that Airbus makes a good airplane, or that Delta understands that Airbus makes a better airplane than Boeing? The first part of the sentence is correct. The second is not, especially not for twin aisle airplanes. The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.

My observation from meetings and stuff is that Boeing is very well aware of the excellent capability of the A321, and has a healthy respect for the A350 and C-series also.

[I have heard this as well from DL internals that the plane isn't living up to expectations and Airbus claims that were made to get the contracts signed. It seems it can fly far or carry a heavy load but it can't do both at the same time. As such DL is disappointed in its performance and trying to get Airbus to change the rating on the plane. The issue is the DL feels that Airbus should do it for free and Airbus wants DL to pay for it. So until that happens, its SOP.

It’s a little obtuse of you to think that an A350 Load Optimization Planner at Delta in ATL is not a “trustworthy” source...it’s kind of their job. Plus, read the other posts above this that mention the DL internal rumblings about it’s MTOW concerns.

I just need exact explanation. Maybe there should be other reasons. For exemple MEL restriction. I would like to see some numbers. A359 OEW aprox. 140t fuel burn is around 6t per hour flight, DTW-PWG 6202nm speed 0.85M flight time 12:43 but in real world it will be 14h it is 90t fuel with 1 hour reserve 38t left for pax and cargo, but that does not mean the A359 is doing it wrong.

There should be other operational rasons or your source is not thrust worthy

Not sure what is going on here, PEK-DTW should be a fast flight with the tailwinds, and DTW-PEK polar.

We operate the 359 out of EWR and IAD to HKG almost daily, most times we do not need MTOW to do over 7000 nm (DTW-PEK is around 5800 nm). Our MTOWs are above 275 tonnes. I do not know if DL has full ETOPS capability yet, we operate them ETOPS 240.

DL has 26 more seats than we do (higher empty weight), so they would carry more catering than we do.

DL could get a paper MTOW change to 277 tonnes for its existing aircraft, the just need to write cheque and Airbus will amend their flight manual to reflect the new weights.

Our 359 max payload would be circa of 10 tonnes less than the 77L, however it is more than the 77E. If the DL 359 is at 268 tonnes MTOW would make it around 80 tonnes lighter than a 77L and 30 tonnes lighter than a 77E (at MTOW). A significant fuel saving over both with the lower weights, more efficient engines, and lower drag, lower maintenance costs means lower cost per passenger and cost per tonne, faster flight times.

If you need more payload, the 35K lifts 5-10 tonnes more than a 77L/77W, and is still a fair bit lighter (and about 30 minutes faster over the long routes).

DL's sensible to have realised there are better products coming of Airbus' shelf. So their recent love for A350's and A321's. Maybe even A220's soon ( though it's much less of an Airbus)

What exactly are you trying to say? That Delta understands that Airbus makes a good airplane, or that Delta understands that Airbus makes a better airplane than Boeing? The first part of the sentence is correct. The second is not, especially not for twin aisle airplanes. The A350 is an excellent machine, but it’s not “better” than the competing Boeing products.

My observation from meetings and stuff is that Boeing is very well aware of the excellent capability of the A321, and has a healthy respect for the A350 and C-series also.

I meant both ways, that DL realised Airbus makes good planes and planes better than Boeing, for its mission. Meaning, Boeings are not bad , but for DL's route missions, they found some of the Airbus planes much better and ideal. After all they are replacing their Boeing 747s with Airbus A350's and not 787's or 77W's despite already operating the 777 fleet. And yes, the A321 than any Boeing plane again.

My friend works for DL in the ATL flight planning/dispatch department and he say’s his department is disappointed in the A350 payload ability with it being frequently weight restricted. He tells me that on flights such as DTW-PVG/PEK it often can’t take a full load of passengers and cargo. So if the flight is full of revenue passengers then some cargo is left behind and if the flight has non-rev’s then cargo goes and non-rev’s frequently get left behind.

Aside from what he is telling me, I have another Delta friend who experienced this exact situation. Last summer she was trying to fly PEK-DTW and the flight was showing 55 open seats with a mix between J and Y class open. She was shocked to learn that they couldn’t take a single non-rev on this flight and it left with 62 open seats so it could take all of its cargo. This seems a bit extreme to me. I’ve heard of leaving a few non-rev’s behind but 62 is crazy.

I don’t know the technical aspects of the A359 but are there different variations of this aircraft with different payloads abilities? To put it simply: Did Delta buy the cheap A359’s to get a deal? (Obviously the word “cheap” is relative so please no snarky comments about symantics). I ask this because I don’t recall hearing Delta’s 77L’s ever being weight restricted, except for maybe ATL-JNB occasionally in the summer.

Hard to believe. Zeke reported on inaugural flight HKG-EWR:last yearThe EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Even if it is for 275t variat is still almost 1000sm furter then DTW-PVG!

There should be other operational rasons or your source is not thrust worthy

Depending on what type of cargo they carry I wouldn’t be surprised if DL couldn’t fill every seat as well as 36 LD3’s worth of cargo on a 6200nm DTW-PVG flight. If DL maxed out on cargo, then They may not take nonrevs. I also wouldn’t be surprised that if every seat is full, they have to leave cargo behind.

Delta has plenty of opportunities to reroute cargo to PVG via other hubs if they have to (although I suspect SEA-PVG would be weight restricted regarding cargo as well with the 767).